‘Place of worship’ and ‘Easter worshippers’

This sounds like an appropriate enough comment.

This indicates ridiculously different standards:

Conway serves as a counsellor to President Trump.

Another example of double standards – Tammy Bruce (Fox News): ‘Easter worshipers?’ How the language of the left avoids real discussion of terror

In the aftermath of the horrific mass murder of Christians on Easter in Sri Lanka, it is clear that the threat on Christians worldwide continues.

Just last year, the Pew Research Center reported that Christians are the most persecuted religious people in the world. This reality isn’t about politics or preferences, it’s simply the fact of the matter. Violence against any group of people is naturally condemned by the decent, but in order to properly address reality, one must recognize and accept basic, factual truths.

Even with something as blatant and horrific as the Sri Lanka attacks, this still seems to be the most difficult thing for Democratic party leadership in this country, including its two most famous representatives, former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In tweets that caught the attention of everyone for their strange and euphemistic approach regarding the mass murder in Sri Lanka, Obama at 7 a.m. on Easter, and then Clinton a little over three hours later, tweeted about the massacre without once referring to Christians.

That would’ve been strange enough, but they chose instead to use the same odd euphemism for Christians, specifically “Easter worshipers.“ This gave the impression that this might as well have been an attack on pagans, or perhaps a group of people who enjoy brightly colored eggs.

After all, Christians do not “worship” Easter. That holy day is a reflection on an event at the foundation of Christian faith. It is, in fact, a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Definition of ‘worship’: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity

To me ‘Easter worshippers’ means worshippers at Easter, not worshippers of Easter. For Christians I thought that Easter was all about expressions of reverence and adoration for a deity.

Obama’s tweet read, “The attacks on tourist and Easter worshipers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”

Clinton then tweeted, “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshipers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”

This new euphemism for Christians wasn’t happenstance or limited to Obama and Clinton. A number of high-profile Democrats apparently received the memo and suddenly House members, a governor, and a Democratic candidate for president were tweeting their condolences for the “Easter worshipers.”

We know in order to confront the cause of something you have to recognize the truth of the event itself. If we refuse to name the victims of an attack, it makes it that much more difficult to name the perpetrators and then define the motive.

By ignoring that it was a Christian attack on Easter Sunday inside churches, leftist leadership here and around the world do not have to address the horror of Islamist terrorism and the fact that Christians (and Jews) are targets.

This is not the first time that Obama and the Democrats have led an effort to downplay or deny Islamist terrorism occurred.

But they have no problem with this apparently:

What’s the difference?

Bad faith.

Leave a comment

54 Comments

  1. Patzcuaro

     /  29th April 2019

    “What’s the difference”, alternative reality commonly found on Fox or at White House.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  29th April 2019

      Sunday worshippers wouldn’t mean worshippers of Sunday. I am sure that nobody meant that Easter worshippers were anything other than worshippers at Easter.

      There were also tourists killed, which Barack Obama mentioned. I don’t think that there was any downplaying of the fact that the people in the churches were Christians; what else could they be if they were there for Easter ? Someone’s hair-splitting. Surely the point is that they were in church for a major Christian event, therefore a soft target like the Christchurch Muslims.

      Reply
  2. David

     /  29th April 2019

    The difference is she Melania talked in terms of her sadness at people being killed in their place of worship…generally. The likes of Hilary et al made a big virtue signalling play on white supremacist, Islamophobia etc etc after Christchurch and a less specific mention of who was involved in Sri Lanka…there was a marked difference in responses.
    Melania Trump takes a more general expression of sympathy which includes everyone and picks out nobody as one would expect from a politicians spouse. It was just diplomatic and surely not an excuse just to have a crack at someone who appears to be a lovely person who just happens to be married to someone you detest.
    What did Nancy Pelosi,s husband tweet, what about Chucks other half ?

    Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  29th April 2019

      The difference is Melania is FLOTUS, the rest are just politician’s spouses.

      Reply
  3. duperez

     /  29th April 2019

    If piddling around with language, what is said, what it means, reality, nuances and significance, let’s go the whole hog and get right into everything that is presented.

    How about starting with something that on the surface is very simple – “Conway serves as a counsellor to President Trump.” Now there’s a bundle with scope for another couple of million words. 🙃

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  29th April 2019

      Aljazeera tv news had an item on this & noted that Trump has just again yesterday defended the good people at the Nazi infested Charlottesville rally where that hater drove his car into the crowd of protestors against them & killed a woman. He said the good people were there to oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E Lee who is a grest general. They also noted that many of those Nazis at the rally were expressing anti-semitic views & that hate crimes against Jews have steadily increased since Trump took office.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  29th April 2019

        That was on 3 News, with Trump actually saying it. He will probably try to deny it, of course.
        He spoke for some time and there is no doubt of his sentiments.

        Reply
    • The Consultant

       /  29th April 2019

      Good grief. Who posted a cartoon showing Israeli leader Netanyahu as a dog, complete with blue Star-Of-David collar and leash, leading a blind Trump, who is wearing a kippah, just in case you might miss the point.

      The Daily Stormer? One of those other RWNJ White Supremacy websites? Or maybe some yuuuggggeeee media supporter of Trump, like Fox News?

      Nah. It was the New York Times.

      But don’t worry. They’ve deleted it and apologised. Sort of. Well actually they haven’t exactly apologised….

      A political cartoon in the international print edition of The New York Times on Thursday included anti-Semitic tropes, depicting the prime minister of Israel as a guide dog with a Star of David collar, leading the president of the United States, shown wearing a skullcap. The image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it. It was provided by the New York Times News Service and Syndicate, which has since deleted it.’

      Well that’s fair enough. It’s all the fault of some external joke supplier, and the NYT has run out of editors and layers and layers of fact-checkers.

      Of course the apology could have taken another form, and there is a suggestion here from Dominic Green in The Spectator, although you have to read through some searingly acidic prose first about something that some people published:

      ‘We ran a blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon. At a time when anti-Jewish violence and incitement is at levels not seen since 1945, we chose to place gutter racism on our pages. We did this because plenty of our editors share the prejudice of this cartoon; if in doubt, look at our unsigned editorials.

      ‘We’re so soaked in this that none of us thought that it might be an error to publish a cartoon with clear precursors in fascist, communist, Arab nationalist and Islamist propaganda. Rather than explain this away in the passive tense, we’re going to name the editors who signed off on this cartoon, and fire them.’

      Oh – and BTW, it’s being reported that the shooter hated Trump’s guts and considers him part of the vast Jewish mind control project that we’re apparently being submitted to.

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  29th April 2019

        Sorry, I don’t understand what is offensive, much less anti-Semitic. The timing may not be great due to the synagogue massacre, but:

        Zionism and/or the policies of Israel are not Judaism

        Zionism and the policies of Israel are fair game for criticism without it being anti-Semitic.

        Substitute any number of world politicians with similar national symbols (Theresa May and the Union Jack with Trump wearing a bowler hat, Emmanuel Macron and a baguette or tricolour with Trump in a beret)

        …and the potentially valid critique would be the same: a foreign power is leading a blind POTUS to do their bidding, instead of what is necessarily best for the American people. Note, that doesn’t mean you have to agree with the critique, but it is not in and of itself anti-Semitic.

        And unlike the cartoons that appeared in the NZ Herald a while ago, Netanyahu has not been portrayed with the exaggerated bulbous or hooked nosed anti-Semitic features that typified the likes of Der Stürmer in Nazi Germany.

        Or isn’t one ever allowed to suggest that US foreign policy is too closely aligned, indeed even subservient to Likud policies?!

        Reply
        • The Consultant

           /  29th April 2019

          Zionism and/or the policies of Israel are not Judaism

          Zionism and the policies of Israel are fair game for criticism without it being anti-Semitic.

          Oh sure. Yet somehow, in the midst of all that calm, rational criticism and opposition to Zionist policies in places like the West Bank, the old “tropes”, as the NYT called them, just keep creeping through, as Green explains.

          … and now all those over-sensitive Jews are blaming the entire New York Times for it. How thin-skinned they are. I mean, it’s not like this cartoon says that a tiny country on the other side of the world controls the president of the most powerful country in the world.

          It’s not like this cartoon implies this alleged manipulation is religious in inspiration, hence the kippah and the Star of David necklace, as if that might be the source of the malignant and magical power that this tiny people exerts over global politics.

          It’s not like the image of the ‘Jewish dog’ as manipulator has any resonance in European Christian culture. ‘As the dog Jew did utter in the streets, “My daughter, O my ducats”,’ Salarino says in the line that isn’t in The Merchant of Venice.

          It’s not as if the same image of the Jewish dog has any resonance among Muslims, whose holy book promises the transformation of Jews and Christians into apes, pigs and dogs.

          If the Spanish “cartoonist” wanted to create a cartoon attacking Zionism, Netanyahu, Israeli foreign policies and Trump, maybe he could have done something that did not draw on a thousand years of vicious, simple-minded, ignorant bigotry against Jews.

          Or maybe he’s just not that clever a cartoonist. After all, the NYT used his work.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  29th April 2019

            Yeah, nah. British bulldog, French poodle. Swap ‘em in, same result. And without an obvious national symbols such as the Star of David (it’s on the Israeli flag! 🇮🇱) the cartoonists reference to Netanyahu would not be clear. And whether Israel is “small” is irrelevant. What is relevant and timely is Israel’s annexation of the West Bank by increment, and the Trump administration’s acquiescence and support for Likud. Hence the cartoon…

            Also, one can acknowledge the existence of a Jewish/Israeli lobby in the US, just as there is a farmers lobby, or a gun lobby, or a black lobby, which arguably has too much sway over US foreign policy

            …without that being automatically anti-Semitic. I agree there is dog-whistle politics going on here. But it looks more like the (dissembling and obfuscation to the contrary) “any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism” brand.

            Reply
            • The Consultant

               /  29th April 2019

              Yeah, nah. British bulldog, French poodle. Swap ‘em in, same result.
              Really? I had no idea that the Dachshund breed was so linked with Israel, or Jews for that matter. I suppose that made all the other symbols a bit of an overkill then?

              And of course, perhaps the real joke here – and I fear I’m giving the cartoonist too much credit – is that this cartoon is not a dog whistle.

              It’s just a dog. 🙂

            • Kimbo

               /  29th April 2019

              I suppose that made all the other symbols a bit of an overkill then?

              Er, no. How else, if you were going to use the “guide dog” analogy, would a satirist do it in such a way that his audience would know the object(s) of his satire?

              And of course, perhaps the real joke here – and I fear I’m giving the cartoonist too much credit – is that this cartoon is not a dog whistle.

              It’s just a dog.

              An analogy is one point of comparison, with all other elements being different. Hence it is irrelevant if the Koran and/or Muslim tradition portrays Jews as dogs (an unclean scavenger in the Ancient and often modern Near East). The analogy in the cartoon is of the otherwise helpful and much-loved guide dog…leading the blind astray.

              And as Jewish culture was traditionally like its fellow-Semitic Arab neigbours in regarding dogs as undesirable, there is no “representative dog” for Israel and/or Judaism. Unlike the British bulldog, French poodle, Russian wolfhound…

              And a dachshund? Was historically used in satire more to portray the Kaiser’s Germany of the Great War in a comically weak negative light. Can’t ever recall it being a trope for the Nazis. Vicious German Shepherds or Rottweilers maybe. Is likely chosen because the dachshund is a small (like the nation of Israel) and seemingly innocuous and comical breed. Hence the satire of the proxy “eyes” unexpectedly leading the blind subject astray for it’s own purposes. That’s the analogy/one point of comparison.

              Anyway, “explaining is losing”, especially in response to the cry of “anti-Semite/racist/sexist…”, but there’s mine.

            • The Consultant

               /  29th April 2019

              Anyway, “explaining is losing”,…

              Certainly is when your own eyes could tell you that, “Hey. Is that cartoon from the DailyStormer?”, and that you therefore have a bit of a messaging problem.

            • Kimbo

               /  29th April 2019

              Certainly is when your own eyes could tell you…and that you therefore have a bit of a messaging problem.

              See, right there, where you presume what others could and should see and therefore understand and say, is where you lose the online argument.

            • The Consultant

               /  29th April 2019

              Meh. The history of studying symbols – or religion. 🙂

            • Kimbo

               /  29th April 2019

              Go delving into history deep and far enough and you can trawl up anything.

              Instead, the best way to interpret any form of communication, including the elements in a satirical cartoon, is the immediate context and obvious intent. Disagree if you want to with the message, and enough, but the cartoon’s ostensible critique – US foreign policy is being shaped by Likud’s priorities – is both relevant and timely.

              So why the Trump administration recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, why recognising their annexation of the Golan Heights, why their current rejection of the two-state solution?

              And as it’s satire it doesn’t have to be balanced, proportionate nor 100% accurate. Just in the potential ballpark.

            • Kimbo

               /  29th April 2019

              I mean, FFS, this is no different to Louisa Wall trying to argue in the High Court (and losing) and the court of public opinion that these are racist:

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/98431944/labour-mp-louisa-wall-takes-fairfax-to-high-court-over-offensive-cartoons

            • The Consultant

               /  29th April 2019

              And as it’s satire it doesn’t have to be balanced, proportionate nor 100% accurate. Just in the potential ballpark.

              I’d agree if two things were changed about the cartoon:

              – Take the Israeli star out. Like the Churchill bulldog portraits, or like Trump himself, Netanyahu has now been around long enough that he’s recognisable in his own right. And it’s not as if all of Israel supports him, which is the implication/slur here. You’ll notice there’s no US flag on Trump.

              – Take the kippah off of Trump. It’s the slur of saying that the President is a secret jew, with all the other baggage associated with that “trope”. The dark glasses say enough.

              Frankly, given that it’s about Jews, I’d pull the dog image as well and just have Netanyahu taking Trump for a walk. If Trump were the dog, not a problem, but given the whole Koran thing about Jews as pigs, monkeys and dogs may sound laughable to Western ears but it has seriously nasty meanings to ME readers. Saying that you can portray a Jew as a dog is as ignorant as saying you can draw Africans as monkeys.

            • Kimbo

               /  29th April 2019

              I’d agree if two things were changed about the cartoon:
              – Take the Israeli star out…Netanyahu has now been around long enough that he’s recognisable in his own right. And it’s not as if all of Israel supports him, which is the implication/slur here…

              Take the kippah off of Trump. It’s the slur of saying that the President is a secret jew

              Nope. Doesn’t work because, as critics of the cartoon have previously argued, Israel is a “tiny” country, so unless a satirisation of Netanyahu is clearly tied to his nation, many readers wouldn’t recognise him.

              And it’s not as if all Americans agree with Trump too, including his policies towards Israel and Palestine. The point is that Netanyahu is the representative leader of…the self-proclaimed Jewish (hence the kippah) state of Israel, and his policies are arguably having too great an influence on the POTUS’s policies.

              but given the whole Koran thing about Jews as pigs, monkeys and dogs may sound laughable to Western ears but it has seriously nasty meanings to ME readers. Saying that you can portray a Jew as a dog is as ignorant as saying you can draw Africans as monkeys.

              And now you may be on to something. And yes, no cartoonist with taste and/or a knowledge of colonialism should ever use, say, the “three monkeys” analogy to portray black people.

              Nonetheless, to a western audience (for whom this Western (Portuguese) cartoonist was drawing the guide dog analogy is not tainted. So whatever others with different cultural backgrounds and agendas want to read into it is their choice. It was almost certainly not the cartoonists original intent. And unless we want to go down a post-modern wormhole, that intent is the thing that should set the parameters on any interpretation and application of the art form.

              Plus, Occam’s Razor: Why is it those who are most in support of Trump’s policies towards Netanyahu’s government who objecting the most to the alleged anti-Semitism? Answer: Because they want to distract from and silence criticism of Trump’s (and Netanyahu’s) policies.

            • The Consultant

               /  29th April 2019

              … and his policies are arguably having too great an influence on the POTUS’s policies.

              Which is a similar argument to what was being said about Trump-Putin. I raise that not as a deflection but to point out – again – that there’s something very different going on when you’re accusing a Jewish leader – whether the PM of Israel or some prominent Jew in the USA – of having “too much” influence on a US President. There are echoes of Jew-hatred there that are not present in making the same accusation of non-Jewish foreign leaders like Putin or Xi.

              Why is it those who are most in support of Trump’s policies towards Netanyahu’s government who objecting the most to the alleged anti-Semitism? Answer: Because they want to distract from and silence criticism of Trump’s (and Netanyahu’s) policies.

              Given that non-Liberal Jews who love and support Trump and Netanyahu are fairly slim pickings among the NYT readership – in fact the whole of New York City – I doubt it was the reaction of such that caused the NYT to pull this cartoon and issue their “apology”.

              And I’ll simply repeat my point that if criticism, even satire, of such policies are to be made, then even humble cartoonists can do better than this ugly shit. Or perhaps everybody is just recycling all the old arguments and this is the best that can be hoped for?

            • Kimbo

               /  29th April 2019

              …there’s something very different going on when you’re accusing a Jewish leader – whether the PM of Israel or some prominent Jew in the USA – of having “too much” influence on a US President. There are echoes of Jew-hatred there that are not present in making the same accusation of non-Jewish foreign leaders like Putin or Xi.

              There is indeed something different in the mind of anti-Semites who buy into crap like the Protocols of Zion, yes. But that does not detract from the possibility that Israel, just like any other nation or group of nations (e.g., NATO, Saudi Arabia) can allegedly have too much influence over American foreign policy, We have no problem raising that issue about the US, or China, or Australia in our affairs. Israel is one of the family of nations, so one should be able to make that assertion without the sinister plot theories of anti-Semitism automatically applying, thus ruling it out.

              Given that non-Liberal Jews who love and support Trump and Netanyahu are fairly slim pickings among the NYT readership – in fact the whole of New York City – I doubt it was the reaction of such that caused the NYT to pull this cartoon and issue their “apology”.

              Not according to Richard Nixon (incidentally, the POTUS who after Harry Truman, was Israel’s greatest friend in a crisis in the 1973 Yom Kippur War) who railed in the Watergate tapes, including in Henry Kissinger’s presence about the “liberal academic Eastern Jewish establishment” as typified by the NY Times!

              I mean, seriously?! Most Americans Jews, who do vote in higher proportion than most other American religious/ethnic groups (and it is not a plot theory to state that fact!), are “liberal”, hence they do vote in much greater proportion for the Democrats. Yet, like Dispensational Christians in the Bible Belt (who vote Republican), they are still unstinting in their support for Israel and her perceived security needs – and no, that isn’t a plot theory either, or meant as a criticism of their American patriotism.

              And I’ll simply repeat my point that if criticism, even satire, of such policies are to be made, then even humble cartoonists can do better than this ugly shit. Or perhaps everybody is just recycling all the old arguments and this is the best that can be hoped for?

              Fair enough. But then shit, like great art is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. And loud not-disinterested voices can influence our initial perceptions. So just out of interest, what would have been a legitimate way for the cartoonist to make his point?

            • Gezza

               /  29th April 2019

              As an immediate, visceral reaction, I don’t like that cartoon – it “felt” anti-semitic, & I’ve had to look at it several times to work out why that makes me feel that way. I decided it’s the dachshund = german = nazi unconscious mental association it gave me.

              If they’d used a labrador Bibi & not had Trump wearing a kippah, as though he’s secretly a Jew, then I’d probably have no problem with it because I agree that he’s bought into the Zionist land-stealing, apartheid-like expansion plans that are exacerbating the Palestinian problem.

              In the West maybe Bibi as a man with a Star of David shirt pulling along a bull with a ring thru its nose might’ve been more apt, & less of the nazi-like association, for some – but it would still be called out & perceived as anti-semitic by pro-Zionist Israelis & the fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel’s policies.

              And with the Palestinians ghettoed in Gaza, & locked down, locked out, & heavily & often cruelly policed at the border & in the West Bank, & the 2014 Gaza war, which killed thousands of them, the comparison with how the Jews were treated in Nazi Germany & occupied territory is not completely inapt.

            • Gezza

               /  29th April 2019

              I’ve just worked out what else was bothering me about that cartoon. It’s that fiery red background. It looks like they’re both in hell.

          • Griff.

             /  29th April 2019

            If you think that is daily stormer like you really should go have a look at the Nalzi symbolism employed on their site .
            For a start the dashhound is a german dog and no Nazi is going to link Israel to Das Vaterland in such a way.
            The cartoon says to those not living in right wing lala land .
            A comically ineffective Israel leading a Blind Trump.
            I agree with Kimbo you are repeating your usual nonsense gas lighting liberals

            I note the offense you seem to take on a regular bases .

            There is a popular word for it .
            Most right wing insults are based on projection more than anything else.
            Snowflake.

            Like the offense taken over the failure to sufficiently emphasize Christianity in the condolences for this latest attack despite the referencing of Easter prominently in most comments .
            Easter is inseparable from Christianity it is after all the celebration of the central tenet of the fuckin religion.

            Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  29th April 2019

        …and no, I’m not denying the existence, indeed even the rise of vile anti-Semitism in the form of global plot theories about a sinister cabal like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that motivated the POS who did this latest massacre

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  29th April 2019

        When Netanyahu thinks its OK to have Star of David symbols

        Other times WHEN A pm is shown as a dog

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  29th April 2019

          Churchill’s nickname was the British Bulldog because of his tenacity during the war.

          This is not the same thing at all, as should be obvious. He was portrayed as a bulldog more than once. He even looked like one.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  29th April 2019

            But a bulldog isnt a guide dog and it was clear that Trump was ‘blind’ – it could have been stupid and that would have worked too.

            Trump has previously known for ‘modern anti Semitic comments’ of his own- usually connecting money and jews

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  29th April 2019

              Yes, but the bulldog Churchill wasn’t meant to be the insult that this cartoon was, as far as I know, as calling him the British Bulldog wasn’t an insult. The two things are totally unconnected and irrelevant to each other.

              I don’t know if there’s any significance in the Netenyahu dog being a dachshund.

            • Duker

               /  29th April 2019

              When Trump used twitter and Star of David graphic to attack Clinton as corrupt with piles of money

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  29th April 2019

              That is why I said that the two had no connection wirh each other. One’s a political cartoon, the other isn’t in the same category.

              Trump musr have forgotten that his daughter’s married to a Jew. Gaga as well as blind ?

  4. Corky

     /  29th April 2019

    Old metaphysical tenent:

    ”If it doesn’t have a name it doesn’t exist.”

    It would be better for liberals, and a who host of other people, if Christianity slowly sank into the backwaters of history.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  29th April 2019

      *whole*

      Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  29th April 2019

      I would mind if all the religions sank – they’re all toxic.

      Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  29th April 2019

        The problem with religion is that is practiced by humans with good and evil intent.

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  29th April 2019

        Maureen, the problem is there’s nothing to take religions place. Most humans have an innate drive to worship/ponder something much more powerful – a force outside the confines of our material existence. A force that helps them with their lives.

        Religion acts as a brake on adherents behaviour. Humanism and atheism has no such brake..apart from what individuals arbitrarily consider right for them.

        Reply
        • duperez

           /  29th April 2019

          Most humans have an innate drive to worship/ponder something much more powerful – a force outside the confines of their material existence? A force that helps them with their lives?

          And many of those humans then have an innate drive to destroy those ponderings which end in conclusions different than their own and the ponderers who found some other force?

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  29th April 2019

            That is also true to a degree. I guess it boils down to which of two brakes you want depressed on society..humanism or religion?

            As a Libertarian, I have no choice in this matter. Humanism wins, hands down.
            But true Libertarianism, like religion, also has a set of moral principles that are adhered to. You can’t be a true Libertarian without understanding those principles. That’s the filter other humanist endeavours don’t have. Therefore in a completely humanist society social order would disintegrate rather quickly in my opinion.

            Yes, social order can be controlled by force. But that’s only a stop gap measure that backfires. Many murderous political regimes have found that out.
            China will eventually succumb to that fate.

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  29th April 2019

              What a load of nonsense.

            • Corky

               /  29th April 2019

              I agree. Any adult content to add to this blog?

            • Griff.

               /  29th April 2019

              As a Libertarian, I have no choice in this matter. Humanism wins, hands down.
              But true Libertarianism, like religion, also has a set of moral principles that are adhered to. You can’t be a true Libertarian without understanding those principles. That’s the filter other humanist endeavours don’t have.

              Modern Libertarianism does not implicitly include any morality besides keep your hands of a my stash.

              Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, mtasheaning “freedom”) is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgment.

              If you think it does what you are actually using does have a name
              Humanism.

              Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

              Beside which you are not a libertarian you are an authoritarian follower.
              No reasoning libertarian would back Trump and his protectionism of both trade and industry’s .
              Or stomach with his support of authoritarian leaders like Putin and Duterte
              or regimes like Saudi and North Korea.

              We also not your claim that atheists lack morels constructs.
              Again pulled from are dark orifice with no bases on realty.
              Atheism is only a lack of belief in gods it says nothing about the moral understanding of an indervidual .
              However most atheist are to a greater or lesser degree humanist or use humanist sourced philosophy to construct their world views .
              Probably the most significant concept in morality the golden rule does not require religion for it deduction instead it can be deduce by logic .
              The ethic of reciprocity is based on the theory.
              If I treat peploe well i can expect it to be more likely that they will treat me well .

            • Corky

               /  29th April 2019

              You truly are thick.

              1- Modern Libertarianism?

              2- ”If you think it does, what you are actually using does have a name
              Humanism.”

              No shit, Sherlock
              .
              3- ”We also note your claim that atheists lack moral constructs.’

              This is what I wrote:

              ”Religion acts as a brake on adherents behaviour. Humanism and atheism has no such brake..apart from what individuals arbitrarily consider right for them.”

              4- ”No reasoning Libertarian would back Trump and his protectionism of both trade and industry.”

              Correct. But given a choice in a blog debate..and what is the lesser negative on world trade and freedom.. I choose Trump. Hence this negates the following written by you:

              ”Besides,you are not a Libertarian, you are an authoritarian follower.”

              And again, backed up by my stance of ”not voting.” Voting is for fools who think they are making a difference.

              I bet you vote, Griff.🙄✔

        • Gezza

           /  29th April 2019

          The brake is our laws.

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  29th April 2019

            Those laws rely on people having some semblance of morality. You may have noticed religious people, comparatively speaking, don’t figure high in crime stats.

            And when many crims decide to go straight, religion can play a large part in their rehabilitation.

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  29th April 2019

            @ Corky

            That’s true, but it relies on them believing fiction, & there can be clashes when different ones believe that theirs is the only one, true, God. A Christian lady attempts to explain the problem here:

            Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  29th April 2019

    Two camps at war over everything and fighting over words when nothing else presents.

    Boring.

    Reply
    • harryk

       /  29th April 2019

      Alan. There are two camps at war over just such arguments far beyond NZ. The arguments on this blog are taking place elsewhere, are important and have relevance in the real world.

      The broader geopolitical context in which the SL attacks took place is the US Vs China rivalry, and in particular the India/US vs China competition to enfold SL into their respective spheres of interest. In brief, China was able to draw SL away from the ‘West’ after criticism of the tactics used to defeat the Tigers and threats to have the UN investigate SL. The result was that the previous Rajapaksa Govt realigned with China and China was able to obtain Hambantota port. US warships were exercising with the SL navy near Hambantota when the attacks took place. The joint exercise was abandoned, a win for China. The Rajapaksas, favoured by China, are using the attacks to attempt a political comeback. Here is China’s response to the attacks, as presented in the Global Times a Govt mouthpiece –

      ‘Secularization Answer to Peace of Religions’

      ‘Sri Lankans partly attribute this construction boom to the Chinese people. When they mention China, they say that the Chinese are our good friends. The entry of atheist Chinese who are secular is changing the economic structure here. Secularization brought by the Chinese will help play down religious disputes among different faiths in the country. Some Westerners say that Chinese people cannot go far because they do not believe in religion. However, they ignore the power of secularization in bringing about change’

      http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1147268.shtml

      China is using the attacks to promote secularization as an antidote to SL’s sectarian issues, something that only economic engagement with China can bring. Small wonder then that the Indian media are presently in overdrive with China conspiracy theories in relation to SL. Pieces like the above in the Global Times stoke the fire. It’s on. The arguments here – fighting over words – resonate elsewhere but need to be anchored in a real world context.

      .

      Reply
  6. Trevors_Elbow

     /  29th April 2019

    Socialists hate Christians – it has ever been so….they are competitors for the masses allegiance. ” ist das Opium des Volkes” meaning ‘Religion is the opium/opiate of the people’ some famous Marxist once said – meaning religion keeps the masses dull and unmoved in their place and their places condition.

    Communists/Marxists and their prettily painted modern day representatives, Socialists, recognise that in the West the challenger for control, because that is what Communists and Socialists truly seek, has always been both the Elite and the Religious establishment.

    Religions hold on the people has long been much more powerful than the elites, and therefore you need to undermine and destroy religion to achieve complete control. And they have been spectacularly successful at it in the West, by co-opting the Christian religion in the West and morphed it away from belief in God to something else entirely – something wish washy and paying lip service to the New Testament.

    Its no surprise now that Leftists like Obama don’t directly refer to Christianity or Christians – its all part of the de-powering and neutering game…

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  29th April 2019

      Trump is about a big a NON christian President as you can get .At least Obama was an active Christian during his presidency.
      https://www.theodysseyonline.com/truth-president-obamas-religious-faith

      Trump prefers Golf as his religion

      Reply
      • Trevors_Elbow

         /  29th April 2019

        yeah.. politicans working a crowd… real true believer who calls massacred Christians Easter worshipers…

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  29th April 2019

          I believe that it was Karl Marx who said that, as well as the famous call for the cisterns of the world to unite; they had nothing to lose but their chains.

          It is trivialising the massacre to hairsplit about Easter worshippers/Christians. Who else would be at an Easter service ? Buddhists and Hindus ?

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  29th April 2019

          They were ‘worshipping’ in their church as the Jews shot and killed in LA in a synagogue while worshipping

          Reply
  1. ‘Place of worship’ and ‘Easter worshippers’ — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply to Duker Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s